10-24-2006, 11:30 PM
my gear gets enough dings and scratches and rust just from packing, repacking, transporting, and wearing, so I don't bother adding more "battle wear"
As for quality of [weapons], keep in mind that today's reconstructions are far superior in consistency and quality as did the ancient pieces. I think Romans would have killed for the quality of the [metal] in our weapons today. Keep in mind all of this stuff back then was made by hand. Very little evidence that I know of that suggests "Machine made" gear (except spun helmet bowls, as could be argued) - So having gear that's not super perfect, slightly off kilter, a little asymetrical, and a bit shaky in fit - to me this is just fine in reflecting what is in the archaeological record.
- That does not mean they were decorated or favored any less.
(also, after 2,000 +/- years in the dirt, perhaps we'll never fully know how precise the fittings were)
As for the tinning being rubbed off, you could go either way, either re-tin the worn parts, or leave as is, to show how the stuff actually wears. I can't imagine it's much different than back then.
Of course, there is a heap of evidence that Romans loved to decorate thier gear, pimp out thier armor and belts and the like. The mere evidence of the "Danglium", those "apron" straps on the belt is a perfect example. What better way to decorate and draw attention to yourself?
Even the armor has bits that appear to be decorated - some of the "bosses" on Lor. Seggie as well as the buckles and strap clasps, are all decorated by some means. Lor. Hammata S-hooks have variations in design/decor, and Lor. Squamata has variation in scale size, shape and metal.
So I'd personally suggest to not ruff up your gear "artifcially", it will wear with regular use.
As for quality of [weapons], keep in mind that today's reconstructions are far superior in consistency and quality as did the ancient pieces. I think Romans would have killed for the quality of the [metal] in our weapons today. Keep in mind all of this stuff back then was made by hand. Very little evidence that I know of that suggests "Machine made" gear (except spun helmet bowls, as could be argued) - So having gear that's not super perfect, slightly off kilter, a little asymetrical, and a bit shaky in fit - to me this is just fine in reflecting what is in the archaeological record.
- That does not mean they were decorated or favored any less.
(also, after 2,000 +/- years in the dirt, perhaps we'll never fully know how precise the fittings were)
As for the tinning being rubbed off, you could go either way, either re-tin the worn parts, or leave as is, to show how the stuff actually wears. I can't imagine it's much different than back then.
Of course, there is a heap of evidence that Romans loved to decorate thier gear, pimp out thier armor and belts and the like. The mere evidence of the "Danglium", those "apron" straps on the belt is a perfect example. What better way to decorate and draw attention to yourself?
Even the armor has bits that appear to be decorated - some of the "bosses" on Lor. Seggie as well as the buckles and strap clasps, are all decorated by some means. Lor. Hammata S-hooks have variations in design/decor, and Lor. Squamata has variation in scale size, shape and metal.
So I'd personally suggest to not ruff up your gear "artifcially", it will wear with regular use.
Andy Volpe
"Build a time machine, it would make this [hobby] a lot easier."
https://www.facebook.com/LegionIIICyr/
Legion III Cyrenaica ~ New England U.S.
Higgins Armory Museum 1931-2013 (worked there 2001-2013)
(Collection moved to Worcester Art Museum)
"Build a time machine, it would make this [hobby] a lot easier."
https://www.facebook.com/LegionIIICyr/
Legion III Cyrenaica ~ New England U.S.
Higgins Armory Museum 1931-2013 (worked there 2001-2013)
(Collection moved to Worcester Art Museum)
